CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceFreedom Hall (TN), Johnson City, TN
Charleston So
Efficiency #220
2025-26: 15-17 · 6-11 conf
@
ETSU
Efficiency #110
2025-26: 23-11 · 15-6 conf
Fri, Nov 27 · TBD
72.0
win 25%
Projected
79.8
win 75%
No line posted yet.
Model: ETSU −7.8 · total 151.8 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: ETSU 67.4, Charleston So 71.1 → 70.2 possessions
+4.2
ETSU offense vs Charleston So defense
+1.6
Charleston So offense vs ETSU defense
−2.2
Projected total
151.8
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
ETSU offense vs Charleston So defense
+1.6
Charleston So offense vs ETSU defense
+2.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
ETSU by 7.8
7.8
Charleston So side ◂▸ ETSU side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help ETSU.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Charleston So is the faster team (73.2, #10 of 365) and ETSU the slower (66.5, #268). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.2
per team, 40 min
Projected total
151.8
model
Projected team totals
72.0 / 79.8
Charleston So / ETSU
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
71.1#13
Charleston So
67.4#257
ETSU
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageETSU
Where ETSU scores: ball control
ETSU turns it over on 15.2% of possessions (#78); Charleston So forces turnovers on 12.8% of opponent possessions (#361). Expect about 13.3%, 3.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +4.3 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCharleston So
Style match: 3-point volume
Charleston So takes 49.5% of its shots from three; ETSU lets opponents take 47.7% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 52.8% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
ETSU averages 66.5 possessions per 40, Charleston So 73.2. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 70 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
AdvantageCharleston So
Where Charleston So struggles: ball control
Charleston So turns it over on 18.5% of possessions (#298); ETSU forces turnovers on 18.5% of opponent possessions (#74). Expect about 18.9%, 2.1 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseETSU
ETSU's ball-hawking
ETSU ranks #11 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.1% of Charleston So's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
ClashETSU
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
ETSU (#26 in 2-point shooting) against Charleston So (#19 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 52.2%. Historically ETSU's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
Charleston So has the ball
OffenseETSU allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #66
51.0% #161
+2.1 pt/100
18.5% #298
18.5% #74
-2.6 pt/100
29.4% #223
27.9% #64
-1.2 pt/100
30.5% #296
36.4% #225
-0.2 pt/100
64.8% #360
—
-0.7 pt/100
Charleston So net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -2.5 pts/100
ETSU has the ball
OffenseCharleston So allowsvs D1 avg
55.3% #33
46.9% #21
+0.1 pt/100
15.2% #78
12.8% #361
+4.3 pt/100
28.3% #252
30.3% #174
-0.9 pt/100
35.0% #180
43.3% #341
+0.6 pt/100
74.7% #93
—
+0.2 pt/100
ETSU net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +4.3 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersCharleston Sooffense vsETSUdefense
Share of shots by zone
Charleston So shoots
40.6
3.6
6.5
49.3
ETSU allows
36.1
3.7
12.5
47.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 58.1%#193 | 59.6%#210 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 49.2%#13 | 44.8%#293 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 36.4%#256 | 33.8%#48 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#78 | 32.9%#110 | 33.7% |
ETSUoffense vsCharleston Sodefense
Share of shots by zone
ETSU shoots
42.8
4.8
15.4
36.9
Charleston So allows
39.3
9.6
20.4
30.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.9%#52 | 51.7%#14 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.1%#21 | 44.2%#275 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.1%#77 | 36.6%#122 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#132 | 31.9%#58 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersCharleston So
−7.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#360 of 365
Off reb %
29.4%
#223
Def reb %
69.7%
#174
Turnover %
18.5%
#298
Forced TO %
12.8%
#361
FT rate
30.5%
#296
FT allowed
43.3%
#341
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security−1.2
Forcing turnovers−2.7
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed−2.1
ETSU
+2.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#86 of 365
Off reb %
28.3%
#252
Def reb %
72.1%
#64
Turnover %
15.2%
#78
Forced TO %
18.5%
#74
FT rate
35.0%
#180
FT allowed
36.4%
#225
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding+0.9
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers+1.2
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed−0.3
ETSU has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.2 (#86 of 365) to Charleston So’s −7.3 (#360).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Charleston So2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Charleston So's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A'lahn Sumler | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-18 | 30.4 | 18.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 55.4% | 39.6% | 5.3 | 65.4% | 34.0% | |
| 12 | Jesse Hafemeister | F | Sr | 6'5" | 32-30 | 26.3 | 12.7 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 58.5% | 39.0% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 24.9% | |
| 11 | Brycen Blaine | G | Jr | 6'5" | 25-7 | 28.0 | 17.2 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 51.0% | 34.6% | 8.7 | 78.3% | 36.6% | |
| 5 | Jacob Taylor | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-24 | 20.9 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 53.3% | 36.1% | 2.0 | 74.4% | 14.7% | |
| 8 | Luke Williams | G | Sr | 6'0" | 20-18 | 31.1 | 10.6 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 56.8% | 39.6% | 5.0 | 64.5% | 18.0% | |
| 7 | Nate Brafford | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 19.3 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 54.3% | 36.0% | 3.1 | 60.7% | 15.4% | |
| 23 | Reis Jones | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-15 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 58.9% | — | 0.0 | 54.1% | 20.6% | |
| 34 | Lase Olalere | F | So | 6'10" | 32-17 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 66.3% | — | 0.0 | 44.4% | 17.1% | |
| 0 | Armari Carraway | G | Jr | 6'0" | 24-14 | 17.0 | 6.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 48.0% | 32.8% | 5.7 | 69.0% | 23.8% | |
| 2 | Jaquias Franklin | G | Sr | 6'1" | 24-3 | 14.6 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 48.8% | 29.6% | 2.3 | 81.8% | 18.5% | |
| 4 | Trent Coleman | F | Sr | 6'7" | 24-1 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 60.7% | 40.0% | 1.3 | 71.9% | 15.1% | |
| 22 | Devin Brafford | F | So | 7'1" | 19-1 | 7.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 52.9% | 20.0% | 0.8 | 52.6% | 22.4% | |
| 24 | Easton Hupp | G | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 42.9% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 100.0% | 42.7% | |
| 10 | AJ Gladieux | G | Fr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 16.3% | |
| 6 | Anthony Gause | G | So | 6'3" | 1-0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.9% | |
| 13 | Kaleb Lofton | G | Jr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
ETSU2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted ETSU's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Brian Taylor II | G | Sr | 6'4" | 34-34 | 33.2 | 14.6 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 53.2% | 34.9% | 4.5 | 76.4% | 26.3% | |
| 13 | Blake Barkley | F | So | 6'8" | 32-32 | 28.6 | 14.6 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 62.2% | 38.3% | 1.5 | 84.0% | 26.2% | |
| 15 | Cam Morris III | F | Sr | 6'8" | 33-33 | 25.6 | 13.2 | 5.2 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 59.1% | 32.3% | 0.9 | 66.9% | 28.4% | |
| 4 | Jaylen Smith | G | Jr | 5'11" | 34-3 | 24.7 | 9.1 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 49.4% | 34.4% | 4.4 | 80.0% | 25.3% | |
| 2 | Maki Johnson | G | Jr | 6'4" | 34-1 | 22.5 | 5.7 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 57.9% | 38.5% | 4.0 | 64.3% | 13.9% | |
| 5 | Allen Strothers | G | Sr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 21.7 | 4.1 | 2.1 | 2.9 | 1.3 | 51.8% | 32.1% | 0.8 | 70.3% | 13.9% | |
| 35 | Jordan McCullum | F | So | 6'8" | 34-32 | 21.6 | 8.3 | 3.7 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 55.5% | 20.5% | 1.3 | 69.8% | 22.8% | |
| 24 | Isaiah Sutherland | F | Fr | 6'7" | 24-0 | 11.0 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 52.7% | 33.9% | 2.3 | 55.6% | 19.2% | |
| 55 | Milton Matthews III | G | Sr | 6'3" | 23-0 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 57.9% | 38.7% | 2.7 | 75.0% | 21.1% | |
| 21 | Gabe Sisk | G | Jr | 6'5" | 18-0 | 9.9 | 3.4 | 2.3 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 51.2% | 10.0% | 0.6 | 90.0% | 20.3% | |
| 14 | Brayden Crump | F | So | 6'8" | 11-1 | 15.8 | 6.4 | 3.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 54.3% | 31.3% | 1.5 | 70.0% | 22.1% | |
| 30 | Henry Sisemore | F | Fr | 6'8" | 7-0 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 44.4% | — | 0.0 | 0.0% | 29.3% | |
| 25 | Joseph Carter | G | Fr | 6'1" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7 | — | 23.9% | |
| 23 | Frederico Whitaker Jr. | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Maddox Huff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Charleston So2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Charleston So's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A'lahn Sumler | G | Jr | 6'4" | 28-18 | 30.4 | 18.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 55.4% | 39.6% | 5.3 | 65.4% | 34.0% | |
| 12 | Jesse Hafemeister | F | Sr | 6'5" | 32-30 | 26.3 | 12.7 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 58.5% | 39.0% | 5.8 | 66.7% | 24.9% | |
| 11 | Brycen Blaine | G | Jr | 6'5" | 25-7 | 28.0 | 17.2 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 51.0% | 34.6% | 8.7 | 78.3% | 36.6% | |
| 5 | Jacob Taylor | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-24 | 20.9 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 53.3% | 36.1% | 2.0 | 74.4% | 14.7% | |
| 8 | Luke Williams | G | Sr | 6'0" | 20-18 | 31.1 | 10.6 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 1.2 | 56.8% | 39.6% | 5.0 | 64.5% | 18.0% | |
| 7 | Nate Brafford | F | Sr | 6'9" | 32-12 | 19.3 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 54.3% | 36.0% | 3.1 | 60.7% | 15.4% | |
| 23 | Reis Jones | F | Sr | 6'10" | 32-15 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 58.9% | — | 0.0 | 54.1% | 20.6% | |
| 34 | Lase Olalere | F | So | 6'10" | 32-17 | 15.6 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 66.3% | — | 0.0 | 44.4% | 17.1% | |
| 0 | Armari Carraway | G | Jr | 6'0" | 24-14 | 17.0 | 6.7 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 48.0% | 32.8% | 5.7 | 69.0% | 23.8% | |
| 2 | Jaquias Franklin | G | Sr | 6'1" | 24-3 | 14.6 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 48.8% | 29.6% | 2.3 | 81.8% | 18.5% | |
| 4 | Trent Coleman | F | Sr | 6'7" | 24-1 | 10.9 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 60.7% | 40.0% | 1.3 | 71.9% | 15.1% | |
| 22 | Devin Brafford | F | So | 7'1" | 19-1 | 7.3 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 52.9% | 20.0% | 0.8 | 52.6% | 22.4% | |
| 24 | Easton Hupp | G | Fr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 42.9% | 22.2% | 2.3 | 100.0% | 42.7% | |
| 10 | AJ Gladieux | G | Fr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 4.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 100.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 16.3% | |
| 6 | Anthony Gause | G | So | 6'3" | 1-0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 19.9% | |
| 13 | Kaleb Lofton | G | Jr | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Charleston So
Against the spread
Season
14-15
Home
6-5
Road
7-9
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.8
Covered 3 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
19-10
Home
8-3
Road
9-7
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +8.1
Over 4 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 4 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Winthrop | N | L 81–86 | +5.5 | W+0.5 | 163.5 | O167 | 104.8 | 111.2 | 77.3 |
| Feb 28 | UNC Asheville | A | W 92–75 | +4.0 | W+21.0 | 149.5 | O167 | 129.9 | 105.9 | 70.8 |
| Feb 26 | Winthrop | H | W 86–84 | +8.0 | W+10.0 | 164.0 | O170 | 107.4 | 104.9 | 80.1 |
| Feb 21 | Longwood | H | L 96–107 2OT | −2.5 | L−13.5 | 154.0 | O203 | 112.9 | 125.8 | 85.0 |
| Feb 17 | Gardner-Webb | H | W 75–66 | −17.5 | L−8.5 | 160.5 | U141 | 100.9 | 88.8 | 74.4 |
| Feb 14 | Radford | A | L 80–90 | +4.5 | L−5.5 | 162.0 | O170 | 103.8 | 116.7 | 77.1 |
| Feb 12 | Presbyterian | H | W 84–67 | −1.5 | W+15.5 | 146.5 | O151 | 124.5 | 99.3 | 67.5 |
| Feb 7 | SC Upstate | A | L 94–100 OT | −1.0 | L−7.0 | 151.5 | O194 | 122.1 | 129.9 | 77.0 |
| Feb 4 | High Point | A | L 55–80 | +14.0 | L−11.0 | 162.5 | U135 | 78.1 | 113.6 | 70.4 |
| Jan 29 | Radford | H | L 75–84 | −1.0 | L−10.0 | 162.5 | U159 | 95.7 | 107.2 | 78.4 |
ETSU
Against the spread
Season
14-18
Home
8-7
Road
6-8
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −3.5
Missed the spread 5 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
17-14-1
Home
7-7-1
Road
9-5
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +3.6
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9 | Furman | N | L 61–76 | −1.0 | L−16.0 | 138.0 | U137 | 98.6 | 122.9 | 61.8 |
| Mar 8 | W Carolina | N | W 69–67 | −3.0 | L−1.0 | 146.0 | U136 | 105.5 | 102.4 | 65.4 |
| Mar 7 | The Citadel | N | W 83–76 | −15.0 | L−8.0 | 139.0 | O159 | 127.7 | 116.9 | 65.0 |
| Feb 28 | Mercer | A | L 76–82 | +1.5 | L−4.5 | 151.0 | O158 | 119.0 | 128.4 | 63.9 |
| Feb 25 | Wofford | H | L 69–72 | −7.0 | L−10.0 | 150.0 | U141 | 103.8 | 108.3 | 66.5 |
| Feb 21 | UNC Greensboro | A | W 87–75 | −6.0 | W+6.0 | 149.0 | O162 | 130.1 | 112.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 18 | Furman | A | W 78–69 | +1.5 | W+10.5 | 141.0 | O147 | 114.4 | 101.2 | 68.2 |
| Feb 14 | Samford | H | L 72–82 OT | −6.0 | L−16.0 | 145.5 | O154 | 95.7 | 109.0 | 75.2 |
| Feb 11 | Chattanooga | H | W 73–61 | −10.0 | W+2.0 | 145.0 | U134 | 110.3 | 92.2 | 66.2 |
| Feb 7 | VMI | A | W 87–70 | −14.5 | W+2.5 | 144.0 | O157 | 123.2 | 99.1 | 70.6 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeCharleston SoETSU
Efficiency
106.9
110.1
109.1
107.0
71.1
67.4
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
55.3%
54.6%
57.2%
35.6%
34.7%
64.8%
74.7%
30.5%
35.0%
Ball control & glass
18.5%
15.2%
12.8%
18.5%
29.4%
28.3%
30.3%
27.9%
10.6%
8.6%
10.0%
7.5%
Style
49.5%
37.8%
40.6%
46.9%
11.0%
12.2%
54.9%
50.8%
39.5%
34.9%
Roster
3.20
3.08
6'5.1"
6'4.7"
—
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputCharleston So
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Charleston So's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
ETSU
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted ETSU's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.